Editors Note: Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who is barred from entering the United States, delivered his acceptance speech for the Letelier-Moffitt International Human Rights Award in a pre-recorded videotape. This is a transcript of his speech, which was viewed at the award ceremony hosted by the Institute for Policy Studies on Oct. 18, 2006 in Washington, DC.
George Bush’s most steadfast backer in the March 2003 preventive war invasion and occupation of Iraq has been British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Bush-Blair Âdynamic duo act is, however, about to end. Blair is soon to resign his post in favor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
It has become a given, even among many progressive critics of Bush administration policy, that while the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal, immoral, unnecessary, poorly executed, and contrary to America’s national security interests, the war on AfghanistanÂwhich was launched five years ago last weekÂwas a legal, moral, and a necessary response to protect American national security in the aftermath of 9/11. Virtually every member of Congress who has gone on record opposing the Iraq War supported the Afghanistan War. Similarly, a number of soldiers who have resisted serving in Iraq on moral grounds have expressed their willingness to serve in Afghanistan.
On the fifth anniversary of the launch of the U.S.-led war against Afghanistan, the Taliban is on the offensive, much of the countryside is in the hands of warlords and opium magnates, U.S. casualties are mounting, and many, if not most, Afghans are actually worse off now than they were before the U.S. invasion.
On the fifth anniversary of the launch of the U.S.-led war against Afghanistan, the Taliban is on the offensive, much of the countryside is in the hands of warlords and opium magnates, U.S. casualties are mounting, and many, if not most, Afghans are actually worse off now than they were before the U.S. invasion.
The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran orÂGod forbidÂNorth Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as Âover-burdened or Âstretched to the limit. The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can’t really undertake another major military contingency.
“The origin of tyranny is iniquity, and springing from a poisonous root, it is a tree which grows and sprouts into a baleful pestilent growth, and to which the axe must by all means be laid.” As true as this was to John Salisbury in the twelfth century, it remains the same in the 21st century, and it forms the basis from which many of the crises in the Middle East have sprung.
The outcome of the November midterm elections in the United States may well hinge on oil and atoms. The issue of atoms, namely Iran’s nuclear ambitions, is potentially more explosive. But the price of gas, since it hits consumers in the pocketbooks, may have the more immediate effect.
North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear weapon. Iran refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program. The non-proliferation regime teeters on the brink. Washington’s uncompromising tactics with both Tehran and Pyongyang have failed to achieve anything but the most radioactive results.
What’s going on with the current bustle around U.S. naval stations? According to Time, the Navy has issued ÂPrepare to Deploy Orders (PTDOs) to a strike group including minesweepers, a submarine, an Aegis class cruiser, and a mine hunter. Taken alongside disclosures that the chief of naval operations asked his planners for a rundown of how a blockade of Iranian oil ports would work, these military preparations led Time to conclude cautiously that the United States Âmay be preparing for war with Iran.Â